Compare AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
 | Vinamra Singhai Principal Engineer at Nineleaps Technology |
 | Sukun Jain Senior Software Engineer at Varian Medical Systems, Inc. |
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
465,623 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable feature is the security, making sure that files are protected, preventing unauthorized users from accessing the system."
"The most valuable feature is the way it blocks threats to external applications."
"It's simple, easy to use."
"It is a one-click WAF with no effort needed."
"It is Amazon. Everything is scalable. It is beyond what we need."
"The customized billing is the most valuable feature."
"The initial setup was very straightforward. Deployment took about ten minutes or less."
"The ability to take multiple data sets and match those data sets together is the solution's most valuable feature. The data lake that comes with it is very useful because that allows us to match data sets with different configurations that we wouldn't normally be able to match."
"We chose this solution in the first place because it has access to Layer 7. I can control the requests and the content, which I can access on my network if I want to even if it's forbidden access to other external resources. If I want to monitor, for example, traffic, and apply this rule on Layer 7, I can do so. This was our main goal when implementing this application. We wanted to take advantage of the Gateway capabilities."
"The simplicity of the solution and its ability to integrate easily with others are its most valuable aspects."
"This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date."
"Good customization; able to report and take action on alerts."
"The solution was very easy to configure. It wasn't hard at all to adjust it to our needs."
"Load balancing and web application firewall features are the most valuable."
"WAF feature replicates the firewall."
"The pricing is quite good."
Cons
"They have to do more to improve, to innovate more features. They need to increase the security. It has to be more active in detecting threats."
"In a future release I would like to see automation. There's no interaction between the applications and that makes it tedious. We have to do the preparation all over again for each of our other applications."
"The user experience, the interface, is lacking. Sometimes it's hard to find certain areas that it has alerted on."
"We need more support as we go global."
"In a future release of this solution, I would like to see additional management features to make things simpler."
"They should work to define more threats, add more security, and make it more compliant with more security companies."
"The solution is cloud-based, and therefore the billing model that comes with it could be more intuitive, in my opinion. It's very easy to not fully understand how you tag things for billing and then you can quite easily run up a high bill without realizing it. The solution needs to be more intuitive around the tagging system, which enables the billing. Right now, I have a cloud architect that does that on our behalf and it isn't something that a business user could use because it still requires quite a lot of technical knowledge to do effectively."
"For now, there is no feature to protect against attack of the bad bots"
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high. The solution should offer different pricing systems."
"The pricing of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's a bit expensive."
"For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved."
"Needs easier integration with the existing SIAM."
"The security of the product could be adjusted."
"It does not have the flexibility for using public IPs in version 2."
"Scalability can be an issue."
"The monitoring on the solution could be better."
"It's an annual subscription."
"There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"There are different scale options available for WAF."
"AWS is not that costly by comparison. They are maybe close to $40 per month. I think it was between $29 or $39."
"It has a variable pricing scheme."
"We are kind of doing a POC comparison to see what works best. Pricing-wise, AWS is one of the most attractive ones. It is fairly cheap, and we like the pricing part. We're trying to see what makes more sense operation-wise, license-wise, and pricing-wise."
"It is not expensive."
More Microsoft Azure Application Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice »
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Web Application Firewall (WAF) solutions are best for your needs.
465,623 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Answer: The most valuable aspect is that it protects our code. It's a bit difficult to overwrite code in our application. It also protects against threats.
Top Answer: Sometimes it's a bit difficult to check the rules because when you apply a rule, sometimes it's too much and we need to rewrite the rules and make compromises on the rules because it will block too… more »
Top Answer: Our primary use case is to protect our internal web solution. We use it to have an internal application for our customers. We are an SME worldwide company, so we have some internal website solutions… more »
Top Answer: This is a SaaS product, so it is always up to date.
Top Answer: The solution is expensive.
Top Answer: The documentation is not user-friendly and it is not very easy to use. For the first-time user, it is difficult to understand so the user-interface needs to be improved. The tutorials are something… more »
Views
10,923
Comparisons
9,058
Reviews
14
Average Words per Review
519
Rating
7.6
Views
15,647
Comparisons
14,028
Reviews
9
Average Words per Review
434
Rating
7.6
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 7% of the time.
Compared 12% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 8% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
AWS Web Application Firewall
Azure Application Gateway
AWS WAF is a web application firewall that helps protect your web applications from common web exploits that could affect application availability, compromise security, or consume excessive resources. AWS WAF gives you control over which traffic to allow or block to your web applications by defining customizable web security rules. You can use AWS WAF to create custom rules that block common attack patterns, such as SQL injection or cross-site scripting, and rules that are designed for your specific application. New rules can be deployed within minutes, letting you respond quickly to changing traffic patterns. Also, AWS WAF includes a full-featured API that you can use to automate the creation, deployment, and maintenance of web security rules.
Azure Application Gateway is a web traffic load balancer that enables you to manage traffic to your web applications. Traditional load balancers operate at the transport layer (OSI layer 4 - TCP and UDP) and route traffic based on source IP address and port, to a destination IP address and port.
Learn more about AWS WAF
Learn more about Microsoft Azure Application Gateway
eVitamins, 9Splay, Senao International
Lilly, AccuWeather, AIRFRANCE, Honeywell,
Computer Software Company26%
Comms Service Provider19%
Media Company16%
Financial Services Firm7%
Computer Software Company32%
Comms Service Provider18%
Government5%
Media Company5%
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise33%
Large Enterprise47%
Small Business27%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise64%
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway and other solutions. Updated: January 2021.
465,623 professionals have used our research since 2012.
AWS WAF is ranked 2nd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 14 reviews while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is ranked 3rd in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 9 reviews. AWS WAF is rated 7.6, while Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AWS WAF writes "Use this product to make it possible to deploy web applications securely". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Application Gateway writes "Needs better security and functionality, and requires more intelligence to make it competitive". AWS WAF is most compared with F5 BIG-IP, Akamai Kona Site Defender, Imperva Web Application Firewall, Cloudflare and Fortinet FortiWeb, whereas Microsoft Azure Application Gateway is most compared with F5 BIG-IP, HAProxy, F5 Advanced WAF, Cloudflare and Fortinet FortiWeb. See our AWS WAF vs. Microsoft Azure Application Gateway report.
See our list of best Web Application Firewall (WAF) vendors.
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.